Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.

Sure it is, in an interracial marriage you have to choose.


.>>>>

Sure, but they both could appear white, the DNA would however show a difference.

Same with Gays?

 

[Pop23]

Is there a point?

Nope. Just some ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. Protected though. Or so I hear.

As it should be. Those artists and their sensibility? but whatcha gonna do?

 

[Pop23]

Cannot would indicate a disability, and we do not hold disability against those that with a disability. As far as rights go, no one is denying homosexuals any different rights than heterosexuals.

I thought that you people consider gays as having a disability- mental illness.

Not being denied rights? They do not have the right to not be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accommodation in many states and at the federal level. Some states are fucking their right to adopt children.

The children have rights as well, they have diminished capability and we need to seek what's best for them, not the adult.

And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!

You can't make this shit up folks, you simply can't!

 

[Pop23]

The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.

Sure it is, in an interracial marriage you have to choose.


.>>>>

You have to choose what color your partner, who has no control of what her DNA is, is?

This needs some 'splainin

 

[P@triot]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

 

[Grumblenuts]

same sex heterosexual couple

Say whaa?!

You realize that's completely legal, right?

Or are you going to now going to argue that only gays can marry when they are same sex, or that Sex is now actually important to Marriage?

Can't wait to hear this!

Say whaa?

Hmmm, so if a gay male married a gay female = Baker bakes the cake

straight male married a straight female = Bakes the cake

Straight male marries a straight male = no cake

Gay male marries a gay male = no cake

Everyone is treated equally

Nope, the refusal is not based on sexuality

same-sex
adjective

1. relating to or involving people of the same sex.
   "same-sex friendships"

het·er·o·sex·u·al
ˌhedərəˈsekSH(o͞o)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
   synonyms: straight; More

noun

1. 1.
   a heterosexual person.

cou·ple
ˈkəpəl/
noun

1. 1.
   two individuals of the same sort considered together.
   "a couple of girls were playing marbles"
   synonyms: pair, duo, twosome, two; More
   
2. 2.
   two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually.
   synonyms: husband and wife, twosome, partners, lovers;
   informalitem
   "a honeymoon couple"

"people of the same sex" + "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex" + "two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually" = sorry, does not compute = "Say whaa?"

 

[Grumblenuts]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

They adopt kids and become what then? What do they "have"?

 

[P@triot]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

They adopt kids and become what then? What do they "have"?

When a woman is in labor - she is having a baby. A woman who goes out and adopts is not having a baby.

Homosexuals cannot have a family. All they can do is take in someone else’s children and attempt to traumatize them.

 

[JoeB131]

GOD has fixed all the worlds ill in a way that provides each of us an opportunity for a absolutely wonderful eternity with Him. The way you wish it would require eliminating everyone and creating robots. And yes, homosexuality has been proven to be unsanitary, highly suspect as cancer causing, and seriously damaging to the anus. So GOD even thousands of years ago knew what He was talking about when He says don't do it.

So when he said to kill your neighbors for working on sunday, he was totally right about that?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

They adopt kids and become what then? What do they "have"?

When a woman is in labor - she is having a baby. A woman who goes out and adopts is not having a baby.

Homosexuals cannot have a family. All they can do is take in someone else’s children and attempt to traumatize them.

So you have no answer. Figures. Was just making sure.

 

[P@triot]

So you have no answer. Figures. Was just making sure.

Uh...I just answered. YOU have no response.

 

[Syriusly]

For now. But they did say that a man's 1st Amendment protections extend into his shop in the marketplace and cannot be punished by the state. So enjoy the "ambiguity" while it lasts.

There's no actual punishment or ambiguity. There's just religious bigotry which has no place in secular jurisprudence.

The Court recognized that it's one lifestyle vs another (faith). So they're on even playing field as such. Except that lifestyles don't have Constitutional protections and faith does. And the Court says faith does clear into the marketplace.

The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.

You are just lying again.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile the gay couple refused to patronize a gay or gay friendly business at first.

You think they were aggressively targeting a known Christian business with the premeditated intent of ruining the guy for a political statement and "example to others"?

Well you would think that.

Despite absolutely no evidence that they were.

 

[Syriusly]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

Really- so Bob Hope and his wife didn't have a family?

 

[Silhouette]

The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.

You are just lying again.

If the baker refused to bake a cake for them because they were black, do you think the Court would've told the city in Colorado to remain "neutral and respectful" towards the baker?

They sent a message about the distinction between something static and protected and something that isn't static and has no enumerations in the US Constitution. It's about time you got the message. Because you will soon enough in plain English. LGBT is a lifestyle.

 

[Syriusly]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

They adopt kids and become what then? What do they "have"?

When a woman is in labor - she is having a baby. A woman who goes out and adopts is not having a baby.

Homosexuals cannot have a family. All they can do is take in someone else’s children and attempt to traumatize them.

Shame that you think that adoptive parents don't have a family.

Adoptive parents- good adoptive parents- in my mind- are among the real heroes in America.

They take the kids cast off by their biological parents, often traumatized by their parents drug use and abuse, and open their homes and hearts to them- offering to be the parents that the kids own biological parents- denied them.

And I speak of those adoptive parents- straight or gay- I applaud all of them who volunteer to be those good parents.

 

[Pop23]

same sex heterosexual couple

Say whaa?!

You realize that's completely legal, right?

Or are you going to now going to argue that only gays can marry when they are same sex, or that Sex is now actually important to Marriage?

Can't wait to hear this!

Say whaa?

Hmmm, so if a gay male married a gay female = Baker bakes the cake

straight male married a straight female = Bakes the cake

Straight male marries a straight male = no cake

Gay male marries a gay male = no cake

Everyone is treated equally

Nope, the refusal is not based on sexuality

same-sex
adjective

1. relating to or involving people of the same sex.
   "same-sex friendships"

het·er·o·sex·u·al
ˌhedərəˈsekSH(o͞o)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
   synonyms: straight; More

noun

1. 1.
   a heterosexual person.

cou·ple
ˈkəpəl/
noun

1. 1.
   two individuals of the same sort considered together.
   "a couple of girls were playing marbles"
   synonyms: pair, duo, twosome, two; More
   
2. 2.
   two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually.
   synonyms: husband and wife, twosome, partners, lovers;
   informalitem
   "a honeymoon couple"

"people of the same sex" + "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex" + "two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually" = sorry, does not compute = "Say whaa?"

The dictionary is not the law dimwit

 

[Syriusly]

The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.

You are just lying again.

If the baker refused to bake a cake for them because they were black, do you think the Court would've told the city in Colorado to remain "neutral and respectful" towards the baker?

Reading the Court's opinion that is exactly what the court would have done.

Because according to Colorado law- refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are black or because they are gay- is absolutely the same.

If the baker had said his religious faith compelled him to not create a cake for a mixed race couple- the court response likely would have been the same.

 

[Silhouette]

Because according to Colorado law- refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are black or because they are gay- is absolutely the same.

If the baker had said his religious faith compelled him to not create a cake for a mixed race couple- the court response likely would have been the same.

Uh huh. Sure it would have. Anyone else believe this? Race is enumerated in the Constitution. Gay lifestyles are not. You're familiar with the document that the Supremes work from, right?

Gay lifestyles (non enumerated) were tested against faith (enumerated) and they came out underneath.

 

[Syriusly]

The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.

You are just lying again.

They sent a message about the distinction between something static and protected and something that isn't static and has no enumerations in the US Constitution. It's about time you got the message. Because you will soon enough in plain English. LGBT is a lifestyle.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,"